solver_test_source_connection

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that a passing test activates the connection and that the wire reports test_state/test_error, giving the agent useful context beyond a simple 'test' label. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or error handling, so it stops short of 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, adds the endpoint, explains the activation side effect, and tells the agent what the wire returns. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, endpoint, side effect, and result signal. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior and how to find connection_id, but the tool is adequately specified for correct selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by showing the endpoint path /v1/source-connections/{id}/test, which clearly ties connection_id to the connection being tested. The parameter meaning is effectively conveyed even though format or where to obtain the ID is not spelled out.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Run the live credential test') on a specific resource ('source connection'), includes the exact endpoint, and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list/create/sync. An agent can understand what this tool does without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it (when you need to validate credentials and possibly activate a connection), but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives or mention related tools such as solver_create_source_connection or solver_start_source_handoff.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.